Posted on 11/18/2009 1:08:34 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators detained at Gitmo are to face trial in a federal district court in New York City, where the death penalty may be sought. They had been facing trial by a military commission at Gitmo, but President Obama decided that he would prefer that the trial be in a civilian court.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed confidence that the cases were strong, and said the trials would not be impaired by the harsh interrogations of Mohammed and others:
I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. I am quite confident that the outcomes in these cases will be successful ones.
President Obama (now known with affection in China as “Oba Mao”) said:
I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice.
I doubt it.
David Horowitz and others argue that the decision is a horrendous one. He observes:
The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan.
I agree — but trial by military commission might not be much more satisfactory.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens, a quite divided Supreme Court held that “the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.” Hamdan did not involve the current military commission procedures
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
These people should have been tried in front of a military tribunal
"The decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in either a military commission or in federal district court need not have been made. He could have been left to languish indefinitely at Gitmo without trial on the grounds that there is simply no way to try him effectively or safely in a civilian court, and that if were he tried and released on a “technicality,” he would present a very clear and present danger to the citizens of the United States and others...
"In any event, the trial is very likely to be a three-ring circus, and consequences are quite likely to reveal the statements of President Obama and General Holder to have been incorrect and poorly considered. I have no idea if, in the event that the civilian court dismisses the charges or produces an acquittal of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it will be possible to retain him in detainee status. It seems likely that he will, in those circumstances, be released into society.
"Even political decisions by the president of the United States should be based on things more important than obeisance to foreign opinion and trying to enhance his status with a leftist constituency."
If he wasn’t mirandized, how can they proceed?
This trial may be so contentious, negative, and obviously political, that the President’s ratings will flatline along the basement floor.
If he is thinking to use this judicial circus as a way to circumvent the Conservatives taking Congress back next year, then I don’t think much of his strategic abilities. ALL publicity on this trial will be negative for the Obama administration.
He was mirandized WHEN he arrived in Gitmo.
It’s going to be a freakin’ circus lasting years like OJ’s trials.
And then shot.
Thank you for letting me know.
Folks we have a traitor in the WH. He has done nothing for our country except to do his best to destroy it. Need you be reminded of the commies, tax evaders etc all around him, his czars etc.
I'm beginning to be convinced that there is not a single elected official in our govt that is honest and a true American.
Venue and the Oklahoma City Bombing Case
Trial judges are generally reluctant to grant a defendant’s request for a change of venue in a criminal trial. A change of venue is inconvenient to the trial participants and is often financially costly. Nevertheless, when a judge believes that a defendant cannot receive a fair trial in the place where the crime was committed, he can order that the trial be moved to another location.
The attorneys for Timothy J. McVeigh and Terry L. Nichols, who were charged in federal court with the April 19, 1995 bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that resulted in the deaths of 168 people, sought a change of venue from Oklahoma City. The defense attorneys argued that there was substantial prejudice against McVeigh and Nichols in Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma, making it impossible for them to receive a fair and impartial trial.
In an order issued on February 20, 1996, Judge Richard P. Matsch agreed. The news coverage of the events surrounding the bombing, its aftermath, and the arrest of McVeigh and Nichols had been extensive in Oklahoma. Matsch noted that the Oklahoma news media had “demonized” the defendants and run news stories suggesting that they had been associated with right-wing militia groups. Because the defendants had been charged with capital crimes, Matsch was concerned that Oklahoma jurors would not be able to set aside their prejudices and emotions to determine first whether the defendants were guilty or innocent and then, if found guilty, whether they deserved to be executed.
Therefore, Matsch ordered a change of venue to Denver, Colorado. Though he acknowledged that the victims of the bombing wished to attend the trials and that a change of venue would cause them hardship, Matsch concluded that the “interests of the victims in being able to attend this trial in Oklahoma are outweighed by the court’s obligation to assure that the trial be conducted with fundamental fairness and with due regard for all constitutional requirements.”
Read more: Venue - Venue And The Oklahoma City Bombing Case http://law.jrank.org/pages/11075/Venue-Venue-Oklahoma-City-Bombing-Case.html#ixzz0XCuufANc
Surely if that does not happen in this case, the trial will be seen as a preposterous farce, the biggest in United States history.
Why KSM and the others are still alive is a mystery.
But the cowardice and the failures that led to his still consuming oxygen have now set him on a path to freedom.
FDR fried the German saboteurs in eight weeks, during which time they were interrogated, tried, convicted, and had the benefit of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
KSM should have been hanged as soon as his waterboarding was finished. That he was not is inexplicable.
Since he was not, what now follows is inevitable.
Killing him as a reasonable war measure was fine.
Cooking up a phony "trial" process, with a known outcome while perverting our civil justice institutions is not fine.
He'll be a free man as soon as this matter is before a Federal judge.
There is no way for this to end well for the kenyan, at best it will be a circus, and even if they get a guilty verdict it will be seen as a farce.
At worst this will attract every radical jihadist in the world, and who knows what that will bring down on NYC.
He is already something of a legend among the Jihadis. This will make him even more so. He will instantly go back into hiding and plot new attacks.
My bet is that one or more of the worst GITMO offenders will be acquitted on some technicality.
How hard will it be? Depends on how many covert Muslims are on the jury....
I've seen that word tossed around more in the past few days than I've seen in ten years. What's the deal, is there a writer's union?
I've seen that word tossed around more in the past few days than I've seen in ten years. What's the deal, is there a writer's union?
Roget's Thesaurus. Synonyms. Tools used by those who take their writing seriously.
There's also been quite a bit of bowing lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.